More handpicked essays just for you.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are effective
Injustice in mandatory minimums
Mandatory minimum sentencing in the united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are effective
We could always fix problems and say we can, having a plan but no action means no plan. Schlosser explained that some people’s plans are in play, “During the Bush administration, attorney General Richard Thornburgh did try to limit the freedom of federal prosecutors.” (Schlosser, 4) However there was an effort put in, the plan didn’t take action. They even went so far that Congress reacted, “Congress enacted… CCCA to provide… Federal sentencing law…” (N/A, 1-2) Even though Congress has changed laws to fit others, it doesn’t change how innocent people get harsher sentences than expected. Mandatory Minimum sentences needs to be solved but so far it all depends on the action provided not on the person or the position they are in.
After viewing the documentary: America's War on Drugs - The Prison Industrial Complex, it is clear that the Criminal Justice System is in desperate need of reconstruction and repair with policies such as the mandatory minimum sentencing act which has proven to be unsuccessful and unjust in its efforts to deter 'criminals from committing illegal acts' as seen with the increase of incarcerations of the American people and the devastating effect it has had on those in prison and the family members of those incarcerated.
The criminal justice system has been in place the United States for centuries. The system has endured many changes throughout the ages. The need for a checks and balances system has been a priority for just as long. Federal sentencing guidelines were created to help create equal punishments among offenders. Judges are given the power of sentencing and they are not immune to opinions, bias, and feelings. These guidelines are set in place to allow the judge to keep their power but keep them within a control group of equality. Although there are a lot of pros to sentencing guidelines there are also a lot of cons. Research has shown that sentencing guidelines have allowed the power to shift from judges to prosecutors and led to sentencing disparity based on sex, race, and social class.
Introduction Alternatives to incarceration have been explored in recent years due to the overcrowding in the correctional system. Intermediate sanctions are one of those alternatives. Intermediate sanctions have long been used in the United States due to the benefits and options that it offers from saving money to reducing overcrowding, but it does, however, have its unfortunate flaws. There are many programs within intermediate sanctions that work, and some that fall behind. Intermediate sanctions are an alternative to the costly prison system, but to what end?
...nited States of America is throwing billions of dollars down an empty black hole trying to solve a problem that they don’t really even have. If just the slightest reforms were made towards drug rehabilitation instead of incarceration then many people’s lives could be saved to live productive lives in society and contribute towards the well being of everyone. If drug policy were changed to exclude incarceration then the U.S. would save billions of dollars every year from having to incarcerate these prisoners. If District attorneys were held responsible for withholding crucial evidence that can exonerate the accused then we would reduce the number of innocent people serving time for crimes that they did not commit. If the death penalty was abolished throughout The United States of America then we would know that no injustices are being served that cannot be reversed.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws have gained popularity in the United States over the last couple of decades. By the early 1990’s, these laws existed in all 50 states (Bjerk, 2005). The purpose of these laws seems to be aimed at creating lengthier sentences for repeat offenders; however, these laws have also been known to cause unintended consequences within the criminal justice system (Bjerk, 2005). Persons involved in the judicial process (such as judges and prosecutors) have come to realize these discrepancies within the mandatory minimum laws and have learned to circumvent them (sometimes causing further discrepancies). When working within the court system, a person encounters mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and on occasion, the need for mitigation/departure from the guidelines. Depending on how judicial personnel decide to “mitigate” the circumstances, one must consider ethical principles (such as formalism) in order to determine how to deal with these types of situations.
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Over half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. Mass incarceration seems to be extremely expensive and a waste of money. It is believed to be a massive failure. Increased punishments and jailing have been declining in effectiveness for more than thirty years. Violent crime rates fell by more than fifty percent between 1991 and 2013, while property crime declined by forty-six percent, according to FBI statistics. Yet between 1990 and 2009, the prison population in the U.S. more than doubled, jumping from 771,243 to over 1.6 million (Nadia Prupis, 2015). While jailing may have at first had a positive result on the crime rate, it has reached a point of being less and less worth all the effort. Income growth and an aging population each had a greater effect on the decline in national crime rates than jailing. Mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies have had huge social and money-related consequences--from its eighty billion dollars per-year price tag to its many societal costs, including an increased risk of recidivism due to barbarous conditions in prison and a lack of after-release reintegration opportunities. The government needs to rethink their strategy and their policies that are bad
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Maybe if I saw more reports on how prison has improved our society and the criminals who live among us, I would see why we should work on reforming our prisons. Until then, it does not seem to be working. We trust in the government to provide for our safety, but we must take responsibility among ourselves. To understand that the current system does work and that its intent is not to provide a safe society. History has shown us that. What we have done or continue to do will not make this a safer place to live. The problem is not to reform our prison system, for this won't stop criminals to commit crimes, but to find ways and means to deteriorate them from doing the crime.
Throughout history into today, there have been many problems with our prison system. Prisons are overcrowded, underfunded, rape rates are off the charts, and we as Americans have no idea how to fix it. We need to have shorter sentences and try to rehabilitate prisoners back to where they can function in society. Many prisoners barely have a high school education and do not receive further education in jail. Guards need to pay more attention to the well being of the inmates and start to notice signs of abuse and address them. These are just a few of the many problems in our prison systems that need to be addressed.
Most people have the common view that the criminal justice system’s increasing arrests and imprisonment is an effective strategy for reducing crime. If the judicial system makes greater distinction among violent and nonviolent crimes, the prisons will have the vacancies to incarcerate the Jeffery Dahmers of the world in prison for life. By providing alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders will reduce the burden of taxpayer’s dollars for added funding for construction of new prisons. I know as a College Student I would like to see increased State funding for education system rather than the millions allocated to the prison system of Pennsylvania.
Be sure to address the four types of sentencing models and the issues surrounding them (equity, truth-in-sentencing and proportionality).
How are those who commit violent crimes different from the rest of us, and how did they get that way? We know that race, poverty and where you live have no statistical bearing on whether a child will become a violent criminal, but sex and age do. Almost all violent criminals are young men. Other predisposing factors include the absence of a father, a family history of violent behavior, a mother's poor health during pregnancy, and the way the child is treated. That most repeat violent criminals have a distinctive lack of empathy. A forensic psychiatrist who has consulted on criminal cases in 49 states, including such notable cases as the Unabomber, Jeffrey Dahmer, the Menendez brothers, John Hinckley, and the OJ Simpson civil suit, Dr. Dietz also consults on workplace violence prevention for a number of Fortune 500 companies. "The victim doesn't count, only the pleasure of the offender counts, the ability to control and manipulate - to play God, carries a lot of weight with these men," he says. In this sense, John Hinkley, who shot President Reagan after stalking Jodi Foster and President Jimmy Carter, was typical, and Jeffrey Dahmer was not. Not only did Dahmer empathize with his victims enough to attempt anesthetizing them, but in days of interviews with Dr. Dietz, Dahmer was sincerely curious about how he turned to necrophilia, serial murder, and dabbling in cannibalism. Dietz lays part of the blame on the media for widely publicizing criminal innovation through mass marketing and histrionic saturation coverage, which encourages copycat crimes. He also advocates separating segments in films with sexual content from those that encourage violence towards women. You can write to Dr. Park Dietz at 537 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300, Newport Beach, California 92660.
There prison population is overpopulated with people just like these. The people in these cases needed help, whether it be employment opportunities, rehabilitation, an alternative to prison, or even a lesser sentence. We have learned that throwing everyone who has a problem in prison and letting them rot behind bars is not the answer. We have only created another problem that our prisons have become overcrowded, and when these offenders finally come out of prison they have a high risk to go right back in. We have to put funding back into communities, society needs to stop spending so much money on sending people to prison, and spend more money trying to keep them out. Society has to put funding back into creating employment opportunities, affordable rehab, and focus on low income communities who need the most help. We need to leave the violent offenders that we are afraid of for prison, and for the people that really need help we can 't put them in jail. Mandatory Minimum sentences are not the answer, this bill needs to be reformed. We have learned that our prisons are filled with people just like Angelos, Echols, and Lockwood who didn’t deserve such harsh sentences and would have benefitted from a judge 's discretion. These people lives would not have been ruined by these sentences if they had better
The United States has the world’s largest prison population and has one of the most unique prison systems known today. In the United States, there is over two million people incarcerated, due to incarceration being the most popular form of punishments known to our county. Convicted offenders charged with felony offends are incapacitated in facilities known as prisons. Today, all prisons in the United States are broken down into four divine categories ranging minimum-security institutions to supermax facilities. Prisons are identified by the level of security of their inmates (SUO, 2016). In the state and federal correctional systems, security levels are mostly designed to separate non-violence offenders from violence offenders.